Meat has been a historical staple in many diets worldwide as a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals for humans. Beef consumption per person is approximately sixty pounds each year [1], and global meat consumption has “more than quadrupled since 1961” [2]. However, the human appetite for animal meats has become a major driving force of environmental damages such as freshwater scarcity, air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and the spread of disease, threatening the future of humanity [3]. These damages inflicted to the environment and humans have called for attention to sustainable development. Considering a constant increase in global population, developing a sustainable substitute for conventional meat seems to be a feasible solution to meet this growing demand for meat products. As an innovative solution for substituting conventional meat, cultivated meat was created by growing muscle tissue from animal stem cells in a laboratory rather than by harvesting it from livestock [4]. While plant-based protein products have entered the meat market, they account for only 1.4% of total meat sales in the United States [5]. Furthermore, 98% of U.S. consumers who buy plant-based meat also purchase conventional meat [5]. Therefore, this study focuses on carnivore diet consumers and their willingness to switch from conventional meat to cultivated meat.

Cultivated meat has been acknowledged to provide benefits related to food quality, health, and animal welfare. Cultivated meat production can virtually eliminate contamination with disease-causing viruses; reduce the risks of emerging infectious diseases associated with the storage, production, and consumption of livestock; and lower the risk of food-borne illnesses transmitted from live animals ^[4][6][4,6]. Additionally, its nutritional content can be augmented to produce a more nutrient-dense meat product with lower amounts of saturated fat/cholesterol and higher amounts of vitamins and minerals ^[4][7][4,7]. Researchers argue that cultivated meat contains attributes (e.g., taste, nutrition, appearance, and tenderness) similar to those of conventional meat [8]. Also, because cultivated meat production uses a technology with which muscle cells are taken from an animal and cultured to grow more muscle, it can protect animals from being slaughtered and provide a painless process for the animals [9]. Perceiving these benefits can facilitate the acceptance of cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat [8].

However, food neophobia may be a major challenge for consumers to perceive cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat because they may have limited knowledge of cultivated meat technology and limited opportunities to taste cultivated meat. They may doubt this new food technology and fear trying an unfamiliar food, wondering whether the cultivated meat production process would generate long-term negative health effects following, for example, the consumption of faulty cell lines [10]. In addition, cultivated meat may be perceived as unnatural because it involves growing muscle tissues in the lab process. This perception of unnaturalness can evoke a sense of disgust or uneasy feelings, inhibiting the acceptance of cultivated meat ^[11][12][11,12].

2. Cultivated Meat

Cultivated meat, also labeled as clean meat, cultured meat, in vitro meat, and lab-grown meat [13], is a new food technology and brings an opportunity to change meat consumption modes and production patterns toward a more sustainable future. Scientists create cultivated meat by taking a sample of muscle cells from a living animal and adjusting the fat composites used in the production to control its nutrients (i.e., vitamins, minerals, and amino acids). These muscle cells enter a nutrient bath in a large stainless-steel vessel called a bioreactor and are converted into finished products such as chicken, beef, or steak ^[7][14][7,14]. Cultivated meat research started in 2002 when a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) project successfully grew fish filets from goldfish skeletal muscle cells [9]. In December 2020, regulators in Singapore approved cultivated chicken nuggets for sale in restaurants [15]. By November 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its first pre-market consultation with UPSIDE Foods, a cultivated meat plant in Berkeley, CA, and confirmed its food production to be safe [16]. It is predicted that cultivated meat will soon be available on restaurant menus and grocery store shelves in the United States [17]. According to McKinsey & Company, the market of cultivated meat may reach $25 billion in annual sales by 2030, especially if cultivated meat can be distributed globally [18]. The literature illuminates that cultivated meat can serve as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat for multiple reasons. Compared to conventional meat production, which leaves a large water footprint, leading to the pollution and degradation of the environment, cultivated meat production reduces green gas emissions, land use, water use, and nutrient pollution ^[19][20][19,20]. Furthermore, cultivated meat production can be ethically beneficial for animal welfare and has the potential to be more sustainable than conventional meat production. Despite the growing potential of cultivated meat and the rising consumer interest in sustainable consumption, limited research has been conducted to examine whether and why consumers accept or reject consuming cultivated meat as a sustainable substitute for conventional meat. This study will address both the benefits and challenges of cultivated meat within the framework of the dual-factor theory.

3. Dual-Factor Theory

The dual-factor theory was first established by Frederick Herzberg [21] to understand drivers of job satisfaction (motivation factors) and dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) among employees. Motivation factors make employees feel good about their jobs, encouraging them to work harder, while hygiene factors such as basic needs, if not satisfied, can cause employees to feel poorly about their job and leave [21]. According to Cenfetelli [22], facilitators such as a high-quality (reliable and responsive) system and current information perception encourage individuals’ technology adoption, while inhibitors such as a lack of perception or a poor perception of current information and poor service quality discourage their technology adoption. Dual-factor theory has been applied for examining consumers’ intention to adopt or reject new concepts, processes, or behaviors ^[23][24][25][23,24,25]. Kushwah et al. [26] reviewed 89 empirical studies and summarized five motives (functional value, social value, emotional value, conditional value, and epistemic value) and two barriers (functional and psychological barriers) of organic food purchase decisions. Among the five motives, functional value was the most critical motivator, followed by social value and conditional value. In terms of the two barriers, functional barriers arose when consumers experienced significant changes due to using a new product or innovation, while a psychological barrier happened when consumers experienced conflicts with their existing values. Tandon et al. [25] examined factors that facilitated or inhibited Japanese consumers’ buying behavior toward organic food. They identified natural factors, nutrition, and ecological welfare as facilitators, while they identified usage, risk, and value barriers as inhibitors. Kumar et al. [24] found that nature content (i.e., certifications, labels, packings, and brand names indicating product naturalness) and regional products were facilitators that encouraged brand love for natural products among food, cosmetics, and other fast-moving consumer goods, while usage barriers (i.e., using products inconsistent with the consumers’ existing values, experiences, needs, and expectations) and image barriers (i.e., consumers’ unfavorable impression towards a brand, product, or innovation) were inhibitors that impeded brand love for these natural products.